<< I have no clue what your reference to "an ideological opposition" to
analogy is
in reference to.>>

It would take me too far afield from the topic of this list to explain. But
the reference would be understood by systematic theologians. Actually, I
doubt my comment is really pertinent to the discussion anyway, especially if
you are unaware of the theological commonplace to which I allude.

<< I am only asking that we be careful in our terminology. My
fear/concern about the improper use of gezerah shavah was precisely the next
step that you tookósuggesting that Matthew was regarded by Luke as "akin to
the Hebrew Scriptures." I know of no basis for such a quantum leap. Can you
give me a single occasion where we have a clear CITATION of Matthew akin to
his CITATIONS of the Hebrew Scriptureóthat would suggest that Luke understood
both to be Scripture.>>

This is a good point, I must concede. Luke does not cite Matthew formally as
he, on occasion - or, more often, the characters in his story - do the
Prophets and Writings. However, the fact remains that Luke never, to my
knowledge, cites Torah in this way, and more often than not he cites from OT
sources in very much the same way that he cites from Matthew (on my
hypothesis). Look, e.g., at the way Torah is cited throughout the entire
first part of Acts 7. Perhaps the more apt comparison would be to say that
Luke cites Matthew very much the way he cites Torah. But I am not sure you
will take this as much of a concession on my part.

> I want to state this delicately, but these paragraphs seem to reveal an
> agenda. In any case, though you affirm this with great vigor, you have said
> nothing to persuade a "non-believer" that the examples of gezerah shavah
> found in the Gospels go back to Jesus (as opposed to Matt, e.g.). It seems
> clearer to me that Matthew himself is a product of scribal training than

that

> Jesus was. But I admit that opinions on this question are related to very
> general principles regarding the proper interpretation of Gospel texts.

And I

> am less than certain that my own are necessarily valid.

<<What agenda? It is nothing more nor less than an evaluation of the
linguistic
make-up and quality of the hermeneutical examples that are reported on the
lips
of Jesus and the pen of Paul. I am not sure what you are suggesting by the
use
of "non-believer" but I reiterate that the assessment that the genius in the
example of gezerah shavah in Luke 22:69 was not a creation of the Early
Church is that of a "non-Christian" namely David Flusser who was an
orthodox Jew.>>

The quotations marks surrounding "non-believer" suggest that I did not mean
it as an allusion to a Jewish scholar like David Flusser, but rather to a
skeptic like myself who wonder whether what Jesus is made to say in the
Gospels of either Matthew or Luke might not sometimes rather be more properly
the discourse of the Evangelist himself, with perhaps no more than a remote
foundation in the teaching of Jesus. It is clear that you oppose this type of
scepticism, but you have not successfully argued against it in my view.

<<As for the scribal ability of Matthew, I find his a mixed report card. I
do not
think he was as nearly capable of "creating" these examples as you assume.>>

I suspect you underestimate Matthew, and perhaps overestimate some of your
teachers in this regard. But this is just a hunch (with minimal scientific
value).

<<Moreover, I am faced with examples where the gezerah shavah is better
preserved in Luke than in Matthew [e.g. Luke 10:27 and parr.] (whom you
suggest created these and from whom supposedly Luke derived them). How is
this to be explained if these are Matthean creations? >>

They could possibly be explained as Lukan creations that are superior to
Matthean creations. At a macro level Luke is imitating Matthew, not copying
him. And imitation in antiquity routinely involved the factor of emulation,
as has been discussed at length by T. L. Brodie, among others. Moreover, your
language "better preserved" is itself loaded in favor of a certain
fundamental position with reference to the interpretation of Gospel texts.

> Perhaps the more apt
> comparison would be to say that
> Luke cites Matthew very much the way he cites Torah.

> They could possibly be explained as Lukan creations
> that are superior to
> Matthean creations. At a macro level Luke is
> imitating Matthew, not copying
> him.

Dear Leonard & All:

I do realize that at least two members of the list:
you and Thomas Longstaff currently hold to Matthean
priority. It would be rather nice to see Thomas take
more of an active role in discussions. It might be
very helpful and useful to carry on discussions along
the thesis of Matthean priority. The same would go
for Markan prioritists to discuss the "so-called solid
foundation for it" they claim, but cannot
demonstrate. To discuss both Matthean and Markan
priority using pericopae as examples is a very helpful
and useful form of discussion.

Having done so for many years it has led me to
seriously doubt either and conclude that Lukan
priority has merit far more than that of both Matthew
or Mark. This is not empty rhetoric on my part since
I always back it up with evidence of the texts. I
have already posted several postings over the past
year that have refuted Mark Goodacre's "Fatigue"
thesis and have shown Lukan priority over that of
Matthew and Mark. I realize it is something very new
to all to see such demonstrations., and it will
probably take some time for it to sink in. I only
hope everyone keeps an open mind, an essential quality
for an academic.

Discussions can help all of us to clarify our thoughts
and use solid scholarship rather than tossing around
empty rhetoric: "Luke copies, or, perhaps, rather,
imitates Matthew"; "Many believe in the priority of
Mark but few are able to give a good reason for it.",
"the Marcan priority theory has been honoured by time;
it provides a sound basis for convincing
redaction-critical readings of Matthew and Luke" "We
are fairly certain that Mark was first"; "two
centuries of Markan priority shows it has merit." None
of these rhetorical statements is ever helpful, but
indicate an emotional and personal bias that fails to
demonstrate and support such claims. Scholarly
discussions are drawn from the texts and their careful
analysis. So, the list should be very welcome and open
to such discussions, which is one of the essential
characters of a list called Synoptic-L.

Thanks Leonard! I only have a few comments: ... Let me just clarify a point and say that I am not suggesting a fundamentalist attitude to the text. I have no

Message 3 of 9
, Apr 1, 2002

0 Attachment

Thanks Leonard!

I only have a few comments:

Maluflen@... wrote:

(snip) ...a skeptic like myself who wonder
whether what Jesus is made to say in the
Gospels of either Matthew or Luke might not sometimes rather be more
properly
the discourse of the Evangelist himself, with perhaps no more than
a remote
foundation in the teaching of Jesus. It is clear that you oppose this
type of
scepticism, but you have not successfully argued against it in my view.

Let me just clarify a point and say that I am not suggesting a fundamentalist
attitude to the text. I have no problem with critical analysis of
the material and identifying the "discourse of the Evangelist himself"
as distinct from more primitive material (if it exists) that may
(historical certainty is always elusive) originate from the historical
Jesus. I will confess that I have been influenced by my study at
the Hebrew University in Jerusalemwhere there was on the whole a more
positive attitude regarding the historical material we have. Again,
this is not a simplistic naïveté, it is just that Descartes'
influence is not as great there as in the west.

My approach is fundamentally philological. My statements about
the primitive nature of the examples of gezerah shavah are based primarily
upon the fact that they are a Hebrew language environmenta language I
find little evidence the Evangelists themselves knew (e.g. all of the Evangelists
fail to get the play on "summer" [QYZ] in the Parable of the Fig Tree).
Thus, my difficulty assuming that the Evangelists themselves were responsible
for what are sophisticated linguistic plays in Hebrew.

In our Cartesian world there will never be a place for historical certainty
regarding the Gospel materialand whether it originates with Jesus.
My years of study in Jerusalem have brought me to the conclusion (and I
think this is the best we can hope for) that there is primitive
material in the Gospels that has retained (against the flow of linguistic
and cultural currents) unmistakable Hebraisms and reflect well known
trends of developing thought that was current at the time of Jesus.
Neither the linguistic traits nor the concerns reflected in this material
do I find attributable to the Evangelists. Taken together I find
it difficult to conclude that the Gospels are a compilation of late creations
by the Evangelists well removed from the historical Jesus himself.

I think the examples of gezerah shavah are a good example of primitive
material that has survived.

<<Moreover, I am faced with examples where the gezerah shavah
is better
preserved in Luke than in Matthew [e.g. Luke 10:27 and parr.] (whom
you
suggest created these and from whom supposedly Luke derived them).
How is
this to be explained if these are Matthean creations? >>

They could possibly be explained as Lukan creations that are superior
to
Matthean creations. At a macro level Luke is imitating Matthew, not
copying
him. And imitation in antiquity routinely involved the factor of emulation,
as has been discussed at length by T. L. Brodie, among others. Moreover,
your
language "better preserved" is itself loaded in favor of a certain
fundamental position with reference to the interpretation of Gospel
texts.

Luke's "imitation" of Matthew as you claim in the matter of examples of
gezerah shavah are consistently more Hebraic and Jewish. I
have sat in countless situations with Jewish scholars who were examining
this material with always the same conclusion. Luke's material is
more primitive, and Mark and Matthew represent poor secondary forms (linguistically
and culturally) of the saying.

This analysis does not support your contention that these are "Matthean
creations" that are imitated by Luke.

I do realize that at least two members of the list:
you and Thomas Longstaff currently hold to Matthean
priority. It would be rather nice to see Thomas take
more of an active role in discussions. It might be
very helpful and useful to carry on discussions along
the thesis of Matthean priority.>>

I would certainly like to see this too.

<< Discussions can help all of us to clarify our thoughts
and use solid scholarship rather than tossing around
empty rhetoric: "Luke copies, or, perhaps, rather,
imitates Matthew"; >>

John, you could argue that the statement in quotation marks (my statement, I
believe) is empty rhetoric, and you would be right if that were the only kind
of writing I did on this list. If, on the other hand, the statement
represents merely a quick reminder or summary of a position which I
frequently illustrate with detailed analyses of texts on this and other
scholarly lists, then your qualification is a bit unfair. I don't know if you
follow the Johannine list-discussions, but I posted there this morning the
following continuation of a discussion with Professor Hofrichter. Perhaps you
could begin by explaining how you think this series of Synoptic parallels
(Matt 18:1-5 pars.) is better seen as exhibiting Lukan priority. I would find
this difficult to fathom, and I think I make a good case (though you would
have to read my published article on the topic for a detailed argument) for a
development here going from Matthew, through Luke, to Mark. Here follows what
I wrote earlier today for the Johannine list, but which is really more
pertinent to the topic of this list:

<< You agree that Jn 13,20 is more primitive than Mk 9,37. But you think
that John has taken his idea from Mt or Lk.>>

What I suggested is that Jn took the idea from Matt 10:40.

<< But in Mt 18,1-5 there is
nothing at all said concerning the disciples or being sent, and Lk
9,46-48 has in shorter form all essentials common with Mk.>>

Why does it matter (for this discussion) what Matt 18:1-5 has? In my article
on Lk 9:46-48 I of course show clearly how Lk uses and rewrites this text,
removing entirely the theme of a child's humility and introducing the theme
of the small one (Paulus) who is accepted by some communities as Jesus
Christ, and ultimately as a messenger of God himself (cf. Gal 4:14b). The
combination of the fact that Luke has his echo of Matt 10:40 at this point in
his narrative, and the fact that he has no parallel of it during the sending
out of the 12 at the beginning of his chapter 9 (but cf. 10:16!) suggests to
me that Luke writes at a time and place where receiving the 12 as messengers
of God was no longer an issue, but receiving Paul and his fellow missionaries
was. Thus the entire hybrid of the issue of the child and the reception of a
missionary did not exist when Matt wrote (that is why there is no trace of it
in Matt 18), but was originally an invention of Luke, with a clearly
intelligible motive (to legitimate the Pauline mission). A late Mark shows
evidence of the Lukan tradition, but because he is trying to conflate with
the pre-Lukan Matthean text, Mk's text becomes even more confused, and it
actually speaks of receiving children (generically) in terms that originally
belong to the Sitz im Leben of receiving the messengers of Jesus (the 12 in
Matt, Paul by allusion in Lk). So this sequence of Gospel composition (Matt
-> Lk -> Mk) illuminates precisely the data you present in your statement.

<< So I think
it is more verisimilar that Mt was fascinated by the issue of
children brought in by Mark and skipped all the strive among the
apostles and the sending-motive which does no longer fit in this
context.>>

It is very difficult to believe that Matt 18:1-5 is secondary to all the mess
we find in the Markan parallel. It is of complete lucidity in itself, and
does not involve at all the issue of an originally apostolic messenger
statement applied to a child. Mark's text, on the contrary, looks like an
attempt to conflate the perspectives of Matt and Lk's rather different
parallels.

<< Luke being the last one tries as he does often to shorten
and harmormonize but to keep the essentials of his predecessors. Why
should Luke have introduced here the sending-motive by his own, which
then would have been further developped by late John?>>

I hope you understand now why Luke's text works better here as Die Mitte der
Schriften.

Leonard wrote:
Why does it matter (for this discussion) what Matt
18:1-5 has? In my article on Lk 9:46-48 [snip]

Thank you Leonard for drawing attention to this
particular parallel. I think a good discussion on it
should be very helpful and quite useful for those who
hold to different positions regarding Gospel priority.

Who is the Greatest? (Mt 18:1-5//Mk 9:33-37//Lk
9:46-48) [Mohammed Ali's question to the magic-mirror
on the wall]

1. The Setting

Lk 9:46-48 Jesus and the disciples are still in the
vicinity outside of Bethsaida, north on the Sea of
Galilee, on the east bank in Herod-Philip's territory.
It is their tenth day there (Lk 9:28 + 37) and they
have just descended the mountain after the
transfiguration. Immediately preceding this narrative
of Lk 9:46-48 Jesus cast out a demon of a sick boy
which the disciples could not do on the father's
request. Jesus rebukes both the demon in the boy to
expel it, and the disciples for their lack of faith.
Jesus predicts that he will be betrayed (Mt
17:22-23//Mk 9:30-32//Lk 9:43b-45), but the disciples
do not understand what he is saying in this regard.
Then Lk describes a quarrel among the disciples as to
which among them is greatest. (Note: Joseph Fitzmyer,
The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (AB 28; Doubleday,
N.Y., 1979):815-18 is clearly dated especially
regarding the analysis of the geography and of little
or no use.)

Mt 18:1-5 takes place at Capernaum. What is
interesting is the previous itinerary: they had left
Galilee (Mt 14:34) to go to Tyre and Sidon (Mt 15:21)
then moved on to some unidentified place to a mountain
there (Mt 15:29); then they went to Magadan (Mt
16:39) a place unidentifiable somewhere perhaps along
the Golanian Bethsaida plain on the western bank of
the Sea of Galilee, and not identifiable with either
Megiddo too far to the SW, nor with Magdala on the
west bank side in Galilee. In Mt 16:5 they cross over
to the other side apparently still on foot and go to
Caesarea-Philippi (Mt 16:13//Mk 8:27). However,
Magadan might have been a scribal corruption in MS
transmission of Magdala in Galilee and Mt 16:5
crossing over would then signify going back to the
east bank where they arrive in Caesarea-Philippi (Mt
16:13). In Mt 17:22 they are in Galilee and reach
Capernaum (Mt 17:24). No text is given regarding the
sojourn from the east to the west bank of the Sea of
Galilee. We must assume it and extrapolate it from
the Matthean text. Once at Capernaum the question
arises of the temple tax and Peter's miraculous catch
of the fish with a coin for the tax payment takes
place (Mt 17:24-27). Then there is a question posed
to Jesus by the disciples about who is greatest in
heaven.

Mt's itinerary starts (1) on the west Galilean shore
and then (2) goes north to the Sidonian region then
(3) SE to some unidentified place (4) to Magadan, (5)
to Caesarea-Philippi, (6) return to Galilee, (7) to
enter Capernaum.

Mk 9:33-37 Jesus and the disciples pass from
Caesarea-Philippi (Mk 8:27) then go into Galilee (Mk
9:30) and arrive in Capernaum. In Galilee, Jesus'
prediction of his betrayal, death and resurrection (Mt
17:22-23//Mk 9:30-32//Lk 9:43b-45), which they could
not understand, precedes their arrival into Capernaum.
Mk 2:1 states that Jesus lived in a house there (EN
OIKWN ESTIN) which signifies in Mk 9:33 (EN TH OIKIA
GENOMENOS) that they were in Jesus' house in
Capernaum. Jesus asks them what they were arguing
about on their way to his home.

SYNOPSIS OF SETTING

The Synoptics disagree where the "Who is the
Greatest?" question takes place. It is near
Julias-Bethsaida in Luke and at Capernaum in Galilee
in Mt and Mk.

Luke has it occur on the tenth day in the region of
Golanian Bethsaida, (not the same place as Andrew,
Peter and Philip's home town in Galilee in Jn 1:44;
12:21 nor identified with the Galilean city which
Jesus condemns (Mt 11:21//Lk 10:13). This region east
of the Jordan belonged to Herod-Philip (Josephus,
Antiq. 17, 189). Golanian Bethsaida was given legal
status as a city in AD 30, about 7 years before Lk's
Gospel, and also given the Gentile name Julias,
honoring Tiberius' mother (see Josephus, Antiq. 18,
2.1,28 saying correctly that it was Augustus' [and of
Scribonia] daughter; see also H. W. Kuhn and R. Arav,
"The Bethsaida Excavations: Historical and
Archaeological Approaches," in the Festschrift-- The
Future of Christianity, Essays in Honor of Helmut
Koester. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991). If a
coherence is seen between Lk and Jn on this score
identifying the Galilean Bethsaida then some of the
apostles were very familiar with the region
surrounding the city and would help account for the
prolonged stay there having some rationale and
practicality. However, I do not hold to this view.
One must keep in mind that the archaeological evidence
points to two Bethsaidas: Julias or the Golanian
Bethsaida and the Galilean Bethsaida. (See B. Pixner,
"Searching for the New Testament Site of Bethsaida,"
BA 48 (1985):207-16. However, Pixner gets the
applications wrong in the NT narratives. R. Arav and
R. Freund, eds., Bethsaida (Kirksville, MO, 1995)
however get it correct as modern et-Tell (208255)
which was first excavated in 1987). Lk 8:26 has them
opposite Galilee supporting that the Bethsaida
identified is in Herod Philip's territory on the east
bank of the Sea of Galilee. Lk 9:7-9 indicates that
the news of Jesus' activities in Herod-Philip's
territory had already spread in Galilee so that Herod
Antipas knew about what was happening there.

Whereas, Mt and Mk have Jesus and the disciples return
from the territory of Herod-Philip back to Galilee
where they enter the city of Capernaum. More
particularly, Mk 2:1;6:1; 9:33 has Jesus back in his
hometown, Capernaum.

The "deserted place" in Mk 6:31ff is apparently in
Galilee, on the western plain of Genneserat, whereas,
in Luke and Mt it is opposite Galilee (see Mt 14:34)
on the eastern plain of the Sea of Galilee known as
the plain of Golanian Bethsaida. Mk 6:45 has them
take a boat to Galilean Bethsaida (see Mk 6:53// Mt
14:34) which necessitates sailing parallel along the
western Galilean shoreline. Since the crowds follow
on foot and arrive ahead of them (Mk 6:33) he must be
speaking of a "deserted place" in Galilee consistent
with this parallel to the shore sailing. It would
further complicate the narrative in Mk had they
actually been in the right place on the Golanian
Bethsaida plain. Yet, Mk has them cross the lake
(copying from Mt) to Bethsaida in Mk 6:45 as the
Galilean city by that name (see Mk 6:53) giving us an
extraordinarily confused geography and a conundrum
apodictically demonstrating "fatigue" and perhaps one
of the best examples.

According to Luke, regarding the location of the
question "Who is the Greatest?" they had been in
Capernaum earlier (Lk 7:1), not now when the question
is posed. The confusions by the later writer Mk on
the geography point to his writing in the late 60's
and less knowledgeable about Palestine, not one like
Matthew who wrote a decade earlier or Luke who wrote
30 years earlier who like Matthew knew Palestine and
Judaism very well.

2. The Question

Lk 9:46-48 a discussion among them concerns who is the
greatest among them. Jesus could read their hearts.
He takes a "little child" (PAIDION) and places it at
his side. Then Jesus says something rather curious.
He says, "Whoever receives this child in my name
receives me, and having received me receives the one
who sent me. So, even the least among you is great."
Lk's narrative shows that greatness has nothing to do
with any attribute or quality any disciple might have.
Jesus placing the child next to himself paints the
picture of a canon [measure] of physical proportion.
This is especially apparent since the adjective of the
question is MEIZON the comparative degree. The height
of Christ is now compared to the physical height of
the little child to draw the analogy. Jesus is
obviously the one who is great. There is also an
obvious sense of humor being demonstrated here. A
deliberate pun on physical height and being great is
clearly made. The punchline that even the least or
physically smallest (or on another level of language
having less attributes or qualities) is irrelevant
since they are all great due to Jesus giving them
authority and dignity as his representatives. Jesus is
what makes them great. On a literary level one gets
the sense that Jesus was relieving the tension in the
air and mood (since he knew their hearts) by his use
of levity. However, on another level of language a
philosophical principle is being demonstrated. What
makes them [the disciples] great is the authority and
the dignity that goes with it that Jesus equally gives
to all of them. People will receive them because of
the authority of Jesus, and doing so they receive them
as vicars of Christ and so receive Jesus and the
Father who sent him. The narrative's imagery is
clean and clear and simple like First through Third
Style period painting. It is interesting that the boy
(PAIDA) in Lk 9:42 is contrasted to the "little child"
(PAIDION) in this narrative.

Mt 18:1-5 poses a different question. The disciples
ask Jesus who is the greatest in the kingdom of
heaven? Jesus takes a "little child" (PAIDION) and
places it in their midst. Then Jesus says "unless you
become like children you will never enter the kingdom
of heaven. Whoever becomes humble like this child is
the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever may
receive such a child in my name receives me. Mt has
Jesus place a little child in their midst as a canon
[measure] among them. The saying, "unless you become
like children you will never enter the kingdom of
heaven." addresses this canon of comparison, but does
not address the question. It is a negative answer
since it demonstrates "being little" or "not great" is
a criteria to enter heaven. In this sense the analogy
has disarmed the question and shows that their
thoughts were misdirected criticizing the form of the
question. Then Jesus says, Whoever becomes humble
like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of
heaven. Now, this second statement is a bit puzzling.
If one must be like a "little child" in order to
enter the kingdom of heaven then emulating the
humility of the child must be part of that criteria to
begin with. So, to single out that feature "humility"
makes little sense in the narrative since it is
implied and understood from the previous verse. The
third statement of Jesus, " Whoever may receive such a
child in my name receives me." is now even far more
puzzling and does not fit into the flow of the
narrative at all. It is a true howler showing fatigue
that Mt's changes to Lk slip him up and creates an
unsustained narrative riddled with inconsistencies.
The narrative's imagery is cluttered and frilly like
Fourth Style period painting.

Mk 9:33-37 after entering Capernaum and then into
Jesus' house there he asks the disciples: "What were
you arguing about along the way?" Mk says they became
silent since they were debating about which among them
was greatest. Without being told what they were
arguing about Jesus sits down and says, "Whoever wants
to be first must be last and servant of all." Then he
took a "little child" (PAIDION) and put it in their
midst. Then he picks up the child and holds it in his
arms and says, "Whoever receives one such as "these
children" in my name receives me and whoever receives
me receives not [only] me but [also] the one who sent
me. Mk 9:35 starts with a fatigue blunder where he
now calls the disciples "the twelve". Mk copies from
Lk clearly having known "Jesus could read their
hearts" but abbreviates the text omitting it. The
text reads that Jesus is never told what they were
discussing yet Jesus knows, clearly indicating fatigue
resulting from changes to Lk. (See Moses Aberbach,
"The Relations Between Master and Disciple in the
Talmudic Age" in Essays Presented to Chief Rabbi
Israel Brodie on the Occasion of His Seventieth
Birthday (London: Soncino, 1965) The first
development in Mk's narrative is more like a maxim or
adage: "Whoever wants to be first must be last and
servant of all." This focuses on their "humility"
found in Mt, and adds the service aspect where each
must serve the rest. Then Mk has Jesus begins to
exhibit odd behavior. He puts a little child in their
midst. He says nothing. Howler, howler, howler! Mk
is clearly using Mt here making very odd changes.
Then Jesus picks up the little child and holds it in
his arms and says something strange: "Whoever receives
one such as "these children" in my name receives me
and whoever receives me receives not [only] me but
[also] the one who sent me. It seems as though
placing the little child in their midst
ritualistically and magically made the disciples like
little children. Jesus picks up the "real little
child" and then says referring to the disciples "these
children". Howler!! Mk's narrative is suffering from
obvious fatigue resulting from changes to Lk and Mt.
The narrative's imagery like Mt's is also cluttered
and frilly like Fourth Style period painting. Mann
correctly staes: "Mark, following the Matthean order ,
severely condensed material he gathered from Matthew
and Luke and made of that condensation the results
before us." (C. S. Mann, Mark (AB 27; Doubleday, N.Y.,
1986):375.